Jump to content

Did Winston Churchill & British Establishment deliberately want partition and deadly violence in punjab


superkaur
 Share

Recommended Posts

I was watching gurinder chandha's documentary recently where some interesting points where made about how jinnah had met winston churchill before partition where they had quite warm words exchanged in letters and held secret meetings with each other. Winston churchill hated the Indians especially brahmin hindus in his documents and overall opposed and hated the idea of india for wanting to leave the British empire. He also hated Muhammadans and Islam as he had stated it in documents yet when he talks to jinnah in letters he is said to have said warm words about Islam. Maybe he was lying to hide churchills real feelings towards both communities and get jinnah on his side.

So I'm wondering did churchill along with the British ruling classes (including royal family) deliberately get cripss to draw a line to divide punjab deliberately dividing nanakana sahib and amritsar knowing it would cause mayhem in the Sikh community enough for them to resort to take up armed resistance to resist the split of their homeland. Meaning violence would have been the deliberately objective by the british enough for it to be wide spread it would either:

1) Prevent the British leaving as Indians would be begging the British administration and army to stay on longer to control the violence and continue its governance.

or

2) Splitting the united india into two countries would be a parting revenge shot to the Indian's for their insistence of the British leaving. Also having pakistan as a base to continue their efforts in south asia would be handy since the Indians had enough of the British raj.


Churchill knew the Sikhs are a martial faith community, he know most of them come from punjab, he also knew they would fight to stop their holy places and land being left in muslim hands. It seems having known all these things the unforgivable act of partitioning punjab was a deliberate policy to ensure Sikhs were  used in the evil game plan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dsinghdp said:

The Muslim population were ready for partition and sharpened their axes to kill Sikhs and Hindus. The Sikhs and Hindus were saying there will be no Pakistan and only leaved the place when they heard the order on the speakers, for them to leave Pakistan.

Not really, it was the Sikh leadership that reluctantly wanted partition of punjab because Jinnah insisted on taking all of Punjab for pakistan. Yes the muslim mobs did start off the killings first possibly aided by the British in covert plans we may never know. Sikhs wanting political power, security and safety for their community were in an impossible position with terms imposed on them by the British. The Sikh masses and the Sikh military generals along with Sikh maharajahs of princely states of jind, nabha, faridkot were very against the idea of partitioning Punjab and losing their homes, holy gurdwara's, land and businesses in west punjab.

It was the Indian independence seeking leadership (master tara singh, akali dal's baldev singh and Bhupinder Singh the maharajah of patiala) that finally sided with indian national congress party to split punjab and join their lot with indian union rather than take up jinnahs offer of keeping the punjab unified under pakistan rule but with autonomy for the Sikhs. Congress also promised the Sikhs similar terms if they joined the Indian union they would get an area in northern india for autonomous rule and we have seen how they have gone back on their word and committed many genocides and massacres on Sikhs ever since.

The point is the mischief makers in all the mess of partition of punjab were the British establishment back in england because they knew exactly what they were doing in causing such catastrophe for the Sikh nation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ranjeet01 said:

If there is one thing in politics that needs to be learnt it is this:

Promises mean nothing 

Very true even the western politician are well known to go back on promise so the Sikh leaders holding out any hope in the promises of banias like MK Gandhi and Bahmans like Nehru was the height of folly. 

With regard to British machinations it would have been easy for the British to sabotage so-called independence by giving the hundreds of native states the right to become independent. This would have left both India and Pakistan with huge areas of land out of their control and with their communications disrupted. 

The British if they required a foothold in South Asia could have easily made a deal with one the many native states when they took the decision to stay independent rather than join India or Pakistan. Look at the image below, all the yellow areas were native states 

british-india-showing-native-states-french-portuguese-possessions-FCW485.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, proactive said:

Very true even the western politician are well known to go back on promise so the Sikh leaders holding out any hope in the promises of banias like MK Gandhi and Bahmans like Nehru was the height of folly. 

With regard to British machinations it would have been easy for the British to sabotage so-called independence by giving the hundreds of native states the right to become independent. This would have left both India and Pakistan with huge areas of land out of their control and with their communications disrupted. 

The British if they required a foothold in South Asia could have easily made a deal with one the many native states when they took the decision to stay independent rather than join India or Pakistan. Look at the image below, all the yellow areas were native states 

british-india-showing-native-states-french-portuguese-possessions-FCW485.jpg

 

Good point about letting native states becoming independent, however that was what happened a few of the states did not want to join india or pakistan. The most contentious of them being kashmir,  hyrderbad and sikkim where the Indian army was used to invade, dethrown the native leaders/maharajahs and force the states to join the Indian Union.

So the game plan of the British was to have a finger in many pies. Pakistan would become their main base and hub to conduct operations in south asia. India was going to be treated as a neutral or enemy state especially when the USSR soviet union had started to help Indian congress party govt in energy infrastructure and other development projects. And the native states that were outside the control of new delhi were going to be used as another convenient trading posts for British goods and commerce.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sikhs were an after thought and never in the equation of the British to be given independence and were expendable pawns to be used and abused for military adventurous-ism for the British empire in the chess board.

Its important to conclude and remember so that all those Sikhs who suck up to the racist british establishment and thinking they would have granted a separate Sikh nation had it not been for the foolishness of master tara singh (who was a fool) and the leadership do not realise what the British game plan was. Had they really wanted to they could have made exceptions for the Sikhs regardless of their population sizes in various area's of west punjab and given back the sovereignty they had stolen from them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, proactive said:

Very true even the western politician are well known to go back on promise so the Sikh leaders holding out any hope in the promises of banias like MK Gandhi and Bahmans like Nehru was the height of folly. 

With regard to British machinations it would have been easy for the British to sabotage so-called independence by giving the hundreds of native states the right to become independent. This would have left both India and Pakistan with huge areas of land out of their control and with their communications disrupted. 

The British if they required a foothold in South Asia could have easily made a deal with one the many native states when they took the decision to stay independent rather than join India or Pakistan. Look at the image below, all the yellow areas were native states 

british-india-showing-native-states-french-portuguese-possessions-FCW485.jpg

 

The British could not understand the Indian civilisation. So India/Pakistan was a easier option for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Dsinghdp said:

The British could not understand the Indian civilisation. So India/Pakistan was a easier option for them.

I think they understood far better than we realise. During the raj, they documented and researched everything from village, religion, language, cultures. 

They did their homework.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, proactive said:

Very true even the western politician are well known to go back on promise so the Sikh leaders holding out any hope in the promises of banias like MK Gandhi and Bahmans like Nehru was the height of folly. 

With regard to British machinations it would have been easy for the British to sabotage so-called independence by giving the hundreds of native states the right to become independent. This would have left both India and Pakistan with huge areas of land out of their control and with their communications disrupted. 

The British if they required a foothold in South Asia could have easily made a deal with one the many native states when they took the decision to stay independent rather than join India or Pakistan. Look at the image below, all the yellow areas were native states 

british-india-showing-native-states-french-portuguese-possessions-FCW485.jpg

 

The British wanted some division but not too much division.

If you look at the geopolitical implications from the map above, India touches Central Asia, Middle East, South East Asia, east Asia, as well as the Indian oceans where Australia and Africa would be in easy reach.

The level of potential influence would have been too much for the various powers. 

It was easier to have the country carved into two because it is simpler to control.

Having multiple states would become too hard to control.

In the history of mankind, the most successful and prosperous states were always smaller states.

The irony of what we are seeing these days is new countries are being carved into smaller units.

Even with brexit, there are people who want London to seperate from the rest of the UK as well as Scotland.

Something to ponder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • yeh it's true, we shouldn't be lazy and need to learn jhatka shikaar. It doesn't help some of grew up in surrounding areas like Slough and Southall where everyone thought it was super bad for amrit dharis to eat meat, and they were following Sant babas and jathas, and instead the Singhs should have been normalising jhatka just like the recent world war soldiers did. We are trying to rectifiy this and khalsa should learn jhatka.  But I am just writing about bhog for those that are still learning rehit. As I explained, there are all these negative influences in the panth that talk against rehit, but this shouldn't deter us from taking khanda pahul, no matter what level of rehit we are!
    • How is it going to help? The link is of a Sikh hunter. Fine, but what good does that do the lazy Sikh who ate khulla maas in a restaurant? By the way, for the OP, yes, it's against rehit to eat khulla maas.
    • Yeah, Sikhs should do bhog of food they eat. But the point of bhog is to only do bhog of food which is fit to be presented to Maharaj. It's not maryada to do bhog of khulla maas and pretend it's OK to eat. It's not. Come on, bro, you should know better than to bring this Sakhi into it. Is this Sikh in the restaurant accompanied by Guru Gobind Singh ji? Is he fighting a dharam yudh? Or is he merely filling his belly with the nearest restaurant?  Please don't make a mockery of our puratan Singhs' sacrifices by comparing them to lazy Sikhs who eat khulla maas.
    • Seriously?? The Dhadi is trying to be cute. For those who didn't get it, he said: "Some say Maharaj killed bakras (goats). Some say he cut the heads of the Panj Piyaras. The truth is that they weren't goats. It was she-goats (ਬਕਰੀਆਂ). He jhatka'd she-goats. Not he-goats." Wow. This is possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard in relation to Sikhi.
    • Instead of a 9 inch or larger kirpan, take a smaller kirpan and put it (without gatra) inside your smaller turban and tie the turban tightly. This keeps a kirpan on your person without interfering with the massage or alarming the masseuse. I'm not talking about a trinket but rather an actual small kirpan that fits in a sheath (you'll have to search to find one). As for ahem, "problems", you could get a male masseuse. I don't know where you are, but in most places there are professional masseuses who actually know what they are doing and can really relieve your muscle pains.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use